Wymondham gets a small mention in respect of the new Leisure centre. This was and will be paid for by the money South Norfolk has got from allowing the massive development in Silfield, which is required by Law to be spent on the residents of Silfield, and to make matters worse is a building which South Norfolk owns.
The excellent Leisure Centre is very well used by all residents of the Parish. It is not just a facility for one part of the Parish. For instance residents from Spooner Row and from Silfield make good use of the facility.
So how has Silfield as a community benefited from the massive development? It is nice that there is a leisure centre for the use of anyone in or out of the area, but this has been done at the expense of Silfield residents.
the money has come from reserves but as the New home iniative payments payments come through, as houses are built they will be diverted to the fund to pay for this. ( Smoke and mirrors and half truths) It is specified in the section 106 agreement and very heavily BURIED in the morass of paperwork around the numerous ( hundreds) application documents.
Now if I were a cynic I would suggest that this was done deliberately and when this is all happened it took me many hours to find it but I did. I guess I was not very popular for doing so and remain so, but this is the second time South Norfolk have done this to Wymondham and if you don't believe me ask the Clerk at the Town Council.
The facts of how the Wymondham leisure centre refurbishment was funded, it was funded by reserves and new homes bonus and not from the development in Silfield, there are only about ten houses completed on the site and section 106 money has not yet come on stream, and it is not law that the section 106 money for developer contributions towards leisure on this site are to be spent on the residents of Silfield alone, it is for the whole district of Wymondham, which is the same for all major developments being built in other parts of the town.
We now have one of the best leisure centres in the county and that includes the private sector and with membership numbers still rising it shows that the people of Wymondham, Silfield, Spooner Row and further afield have all had benefit from the developments in our district.
As a town councillor I do not think you should be talking about what you think are the clerks views as it is just hearsay and should be disregarded, absolutely unbelievable comment, but not surprising.
Do you think you should be telling Julian Halls what he can and can't say in his role as a town councillor on here, especially as you have remained anonymous yourself? Thank goodness we have Julian Hall's speaking up for us.
Thank God that we have someone on here who is prepared to give us the facts about the Leisure Centre. I did not know that it was funded from reserves and that it is used by people from SR, Silfield and all parts of Wymondham.
It is not hearsay it is fact and has happened twice , for this refurb and the last. On both occasions South Norfolk did not tell the Town Council this as they knew it would create an uproar and it was the developers in the end who let the cat out of the bag. New home initiative money can be spent on anything the Council chooses BUT section 106 cannot but as the various regulatory bodies who over see this have been disbanded, all we are left with a very expensive judicial review.
This is from the communities guide on the use of CIL
62.
From 6 April 2010 it has been unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account when determining a planning application for a development, or any part of a development, that is capable of being charged the levy, whether there is a local levy in operation or not, if the obligation does not meet all of the following tests:
(a)
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
(b)
directly related to the development; and
(c)
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
Which bit of directly related do you not understand ?
Is now a good time to request an end to Anonymous posting?
(even if it is just usernames which are registered to a verified e-mail address)
( I'm nothing if not consistent)
(This subject was been discussed before. Anonymous postings are popular and that option will remain. Please feel free to use your name as that is also an option. Webstation)
-- Edited by webstation on Tuesday 7th of March 2017 02:07:46 PM
These people (unlike me) having a go at a named individual (Julian Halls) while posting anonymously, clearly have affiliations with a political party that is not LibDem. Why haven't you got the confidence to tell us who you are, so we can see what you're thinking and can decide whether to vote for you, or your mates, or not?
Don't you get it. We know it's not the law that the money from the Silfield development goes to the Silfield residents but that's what should happen and it would be the right, moral thing to do. They are the one's that will bear the brunt of the massive over-development that most of them didn't want.
I agree! Shame on you for not even having the decency (or bravery) to name yourself. Judging by your views and attitude it would appear you could learn something from Julian and his selfless acts of kindness in any aiding under represented people of wymondham.
How very exciting for you to have really enjoyed reading a conservative leaflet of such - I am so glad you told us all that. Personally, I chuck those political self-aggrandising leaflets in the bin. Once they get in power they do nothing for the people who voted them in (except reverse on their election promises) and Spooner Row is a prime example of that. I would vote for Julian Halls no matter what party he belonged to as he is the only one with any gumption around here.
This leaflet isn't really applicable to Spooner Row. It says, more people in South Norfolk have got faster broadband - that doesn't apply to us. The leaflet is called, "In Touch" - our District Councillor is certainly not in touch with village issues and has disregarded his election promise to stop speculative housing. It says, there is £2.5m investment at Long Stratton leisure facilities (opposite the council offices, by the way), which is some distance from here. It says a £250M inward investment on new homes which must be built alongside jobs to reduce the need for people to commute - that is a joke! We have lots of new houses in the pipeline and nothing positive alongside and this will damage the current deficient infrastructure. I could go on.
I think that the writer is very jealous of how good the SNC Conservative Controlled Council is actually doing. It always comes out on top of nearly every survey undertaken on a range of things especially on its Leisure provision. It sounds like Mr Whinger of SR is just that a Whinger in Chief. There has always been a Leisure Centre in Long Stratton and the two parties on the SNC council supported the investment in the Wymondham and Long Stratton Leisure Centres.
Not Mr Whinger, just stating the obvious facts. I am sure SNC came out on top of its leisure provision survey especially the one opposite the council offices. Have a nice lunchtime massage to ease the stress from writing and promoting rubbish documents that mean diddly squat.
